User talk:Ekkt0r

Welcome


Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like Wikipedia and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! - Ahunt (talk) 10:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Hi all, I'm looking for some help to try and stop the deletion of the BLP of Jörg_Schilling. I'm not an english native speaker, but I decided to write a message in Talk:Jörg_Schilling. Unofortunately, my comments were later hidden by someone else with a "out" tag. My commends are at the bottom of an old revision of that talk page: The deletion will automatically take place on September 25, 2013, unless someone helps me to postpone that deletion. Thanks in advance to anyone willing to help me. Kind regards, Ekkt0r (talk) 12:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Jörg Schilling has been redirected to another article by User:Diego Moya, and it looks like s/he did as an alternative to deletion procedures.
 * It looks like the article was nominated under procedural deletion, which means that you could remove the deletion notice. That would've stopped the deletion. Even if you were too late, you could've requested that the article be undeleted. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a message on my talk page. @  13:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The article is not going to be deleted, as I removed the deletion notice myself as a question of procedure (because the article had already survived a deletion discussion in 2006). I have blanked the contents, as the sources don't seem adequate for a WP:BLP. Ekkt0r can revert my edit, but User:Tcwardrobe, who initiated the proposed deletion, my want to start a full formal deletion discussion (or I may be tempted to do it myself, given the poor sources). Diego (talk) 13:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am the idiot who did not follow WP-procedure. ;) I am still quite fuzzy about the whole procedural stuff, but I am getting along I guess. Anyway, on the mentioned topic, I don't mind if the page gets deleted anymore, as long as the page will be protected in the future (if it gets reverted and would not be a redirect anymore), including the stuff that gets deleted all the time. Basically, your choice (if User:Diego Moya (or some other wikipedian) can hold himself back with his own WP:AfD of course ;-)). Tcwardrobe (talk) 13:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Releases cdrtools
Template:Releases cdrtools has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. 178.7.182.200 (talk) 00:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cdrtools, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page UDF (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

AN3 warning
Please read my warning to you here.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

User Talk
Sorry, user talk pages are meant to reach out to other users. I tried to make some clear suggestions on how you can help cdrecord without having to stick to Wikipedia guidelines (such as notability and relevancy); and that is why it fits better on your user talk page instead of the article discussion (I made similar suggestions there, but you also chose to ignore them, unfortunately).

You are, of course, free to remove contents from your user talk page. But how else should I interpret this as you being unwilling to discuss?

There are more suggestions I made, such as going for a third opinion on which contents are relevant for the article, but it you also ignore this.

As you seem absolutely unwilling to cooperate with finding a consensus, I begin to concur with the WP:SPA assessment that your sole purpose here is to promote cdrecord, and not to actually improve Wikipedia as encyclopedia. --Chire (talk) 07:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Chire, I already know that you think most information currently in the cdrtools article should be moved to its homepage or to a community site, but I do not share your views. And you already know that. Moreover, talk pages are for discussusions about Wikipedia, not for telling others what they could/should do outside Wikipedia. Unfortunately you keep insisting on suggesting that I could create a community site.
 * I'm not interested in creating a community site for cdrtools but on improving this article (as well as other articles I read from time to time). BTW, I have contributed to some other articles and would have contributed to many others if I had not been attacked by several anonymous editors soon after I started improving the cdrtools article.
 * You also suggest that I get a third opinion about the article. The problem is that there is no possible consensus with editors who keep sensoring the cdrtools article to make sure the community will not discover that the boycott of cdrtools by Debian is not justified. BTW, I'm sure E.B. (whom you write about in ) now disagrees with the boycott and just wishes to be forgiven. Ekkt0r (talk) 09:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

== Talk:cdrtools - Are all Software availability sections needed? (UPDATE by Ekkt0r (talk): This WP:RFC on cdrtools was and  who claimed there was a consensus in favor of deleting mentioned sections... but the consensus was against a simple deletion!)==

Hello, please add arguments in favor of retaining these sections under discussion.

A boycott of the WP:RfC won't help you, it will only make you look bad: unwilling to reach a consensus. Thank you. --Chire (talk) 11:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

RFC on Cdrtools
Simple RFC etiquette, that I am afraid you should consider: Fleet Command (talk) 17:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Closure: Either RFCs come to a natural end (e.g. a consensus is naturally formed and everyone agrees on it) or else someone not connect the discussion must close it. You can file a closing request at WP:ANRFC or you can request a reputable mediator like User:Guy Macon, User:TransporterMan, User:Qwyrxian or User:Codename Lisa to close it. (Of course, if you file an ANRFC request, it is highly probably that these guys respond. Also make sure it is not already filed there.)
 * 2) Survey: Participants are allowed to recommend a verdict (some people call it !vote) in the survey section without anyone changing, poisoning, or insinuating that the verdict suggested is somehow worthless, "debunked", invalid, recanted, or ineffective in any other way. Only text of the !vote can speak for itself. The aim of the RFC is to know the community's opinion, not to subvert it. You can, of course, try to convince or persuade !voters to change their verdict.

Warning
Ekktor,

I do understand that you have objection to closure of the discussion in cdrtools but instead of referring to legitimate avenues of appeal, you are engaged in edit warring, bludgeoning the process and subverting community consensus in Cdrtools article. Given your extended history of such behavior in talk:Cdrtools, I warn you that another attempt in edit warring or other disruptive action will result in you being reported to WP:ANI.

If you need help find the correct venue of appeal for closure, I will help you find one.

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)